IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	 25 July 2013 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120022538 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request for affirmation of his honorable discharge under the Department of Defense (DOD) Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP).

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  He is blessed with many individuals in Albuquerque who have offered freely to write and include their pleas and thoughts regarding new evidence which is his new life and sobriety after many lost years of drunkenness and confusion following his combat experiences in Vietnam as a dust-off medic.

	b.  He has remained sober and clean for well over five years now and knows in his heart he will only improve his life and status in the community as his life progresses.  He has opted to include only his therapist's conclusions and two letters of support from two individuals.  He will be helping other combat veterans to stay sober and recover from their respective experiences war produces in a man's psyche after defending America's freedoms and performing their duty.

	c.  He did not know why nor was he aware until about two years ago his honorable discharge had been downgraded to the original under honorable conditions discharge.  

3.  The applicant provides:

* two letters from his psychologist pertaining to his diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
* three training certificates
* two letters of support

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20110011969 on 22 November 2011.

2.  The applicant provides two letters from his psychologist with new argument pertaining to his PTSD and two letters of support.  This is new evidence and will be considered by the Board.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, on 1 September 1966.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 91B (Medical Specialist).  He was promoted to pay grade E-4 on 12 September 1967.  He served in Vietnam from 22 August 1967 through 22 August 1968.

4.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on: 

* 5 April 1968 – for disobeying curfew and failing to obey a lawful order
* 28 April 1969 – for:

* being derelict in the performance of his duties and wrongfully using provoking gestures toward a patient on 2 April 1969
* willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior non-commissioned officer (NCO)
* wrongfully using reproachful words and wrongfully appearing on Ward 7B in need of a haircut on 9 April 1969
* failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 11 April 1969
* willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior NCO on 15 April 1969

5.  On 16 May 1969, he was convicted by a special court-martial of one specification each of threatening a fellow Soldier, disobeying a lawful order from his superior NCO, being disrespectful in language toward his superior NCO, and 
kicking the fellow Soldier in the groin on 2 May 1969.  He was sentenced to six months confinement at hard labor and a forfeiture of pay for six months.

6.  A U.S. Army Armor Center Form 1172 (Report of Psychiatric Evaluation), dated 17 June 1969, shows the applicant was examined on 21 April 1969 and diagnosed with a passive-aggressive personality.  The examining psychiatrist stated the applicant finally appeared to be getting the action for which he had been manipulating for such a long time.  He states that the applicant had noted he had been involved in drug use since entering the Army and held the Army solely responsible for his actions.  The examining official opined that the applicant had nothing to offer the Army except more difficulty.  The applicant's attitude and personality were such that he would undoubtedly continue to cause stress whenever he came into contact with responsibility and duty and it would be to the Army's benefit to separate the applicant.   

7.  The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available for review with this case.  However, his record contains a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) which shows he was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 10 July 1969, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness, with an undesirable discharge.  He completed 2 years, 7 months, and 9 days of net active service with 91 days of time lost.

8.  On 25 May 1977, his discharge was upgraded to honorable under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) and he was issued a corrected DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty).

9.  On 3 April 1978, after review of his request, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted unanimously to deny affirmation of his discharge.

10.  In support of his reconsideration request he provides the following:

	a.  Two letters from his psychologist wherein she advised the applicant of the following:

		(1)  She was providing him with new evidence regarding his petition for an upgrade of his discharge.  She noted that he had been engaged in intensive therapy for his PTSD which developed during his service in Vietnam as a combat medic and that he had made significant strides in rehabilitation to the point where he was now a calmer, sober, productive, and kind member of society.

		(2)  All of the incidents which led to his undesirable discharge were completely consistent with aspects of PTSD (i.e., difficulties obeying authority, altercations with others, substance abuse to avoid re-experiencing traumatic memories).  The actions which resulted in his undesirable discharge were, in her professional opinion, almost certainly a byproduct of the PTSD he acquired due to his service as a combat medic.

		(3)  His excellent progress and recovery from combat-induced PTSD developed in his tour as a combat medic was excellent.  The applicant had remained sober for over 5 years and volunteered with the homeless.  He was active in his church, in men's groups, and in taking care of his elderly parents.  She was recommending the applicant for a job with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as a Peer Support Specialist.  The applicant's honorable discharge should be re-instated to honorable in light of the new evidence of his strong recovery from PTSD and alcoholism and his commitment to helping others.

	b.  Two letters of support wherein the individuals stated their support in the upgrade of the applicant's discharge and attested to the applicant managing his PTSD issues, his continued sobriety, and his work with the homeless and in his church.

   c.  Substance Use Disorders Treatment Program and Substance Abuse, Trauma, Rehabilitation Residence Program completion certificates.

11.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory Soldier.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for individuals separated by reason of unfitness.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 3-7a states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally meets the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

13.  On 4 April 1977, DOD directed the Services to review all less than fully honorable administrative discharges issued between 4 August 1964 and 
28 March 1973.  In the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, this program, known as the DOD SDRP, required that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal, had received an honorable discharge from a previous period of service, or had a record of satisfactory military service of 24 months prior to discharge.  Consideration of other factors, including possible personal problems, which may have contributed to the acts which led to the discharge and a record of good citizenship since the time of discharge would also be considered upon application by the individual.

14.  In October 1978, Public Law 95-126 was enacted.  This legislation required the Service Departments to establish historically-consistent uniform standards for discharge reviews.  Reconsideration using these uniform standards was required for all discharges previously upgraded under the SDRP and certain other programs were required.  Individuals whose SDRP upgrades were not affirmed upon review under these historically-consistent uniform standards were not entitled to VA benefits unless they had been entitled to such benefits before their SDRP review.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, his upgraded discharge should be affirmed under the DOD SDRP because he was suffering from PTSD which was developed during his service in Vietnam as a combat medic.  

2.  The available record shows he underwent a mental evaluation and was diagnosed with a passive-aggressive personality.  The examining psychiatrist stated the applicant noted that he had been involved in drug use since entering the Army.  
 
3.  His record is void of the facts and circumstances which led to his discharge, but he was issued  a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.   

4.  In May 1978, he was notified his undesirable discharge had been upgraded to an honorable discharge and a DD Form 214 was reissued reflecting this action.  After review of his case, the ADRB decided not to affirm the discharge upgrade under Public Law 95-126 and the established uniform standards.  

5.  His contentions and supporting documents have been noted; however, he has not provided sufficient evidence or a convincing argument to show his discharge should be affirmed.  There is no documented history of chronic PTSD during in his period of service which would have been assessed and disposed of through medical channels nor prevented the completion of his term of enlistment.  The evidence shows his misconduct and unsatisfactory performance diminished the quality of his service.  Again, he had stated he had been involved in drug use since entering the Army, indicating at least some forms of his misconduct were not related to his Vietnam service.
6.  Notwithstanding the original determination by the ADRB, the official record shows his service was not satisfactory and his honorable discharge should not be affirmed.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x____  ___x____  ___x ____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case 
are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110011969, dated 22 November 2011.



      __________x_____________
       	   CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120022538





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120022538



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1